lars_bergquist Posted March 13, 2010 Share #21 Posted March 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) The point 2) implies a camera miles ahead of the current M9: better rangefinder and/or focusing assistance; sealed body; better processor and electronics (reliability! reliability!); easier and faster technical support (easier and faster access to the guts of the camera for repairing); better LCD and controls; better software (firmware); etc. I see the S2 camera and I can't avoid comparing it to the M8/9. The S2 sets the standard for future Leica digital products. The current ones (M9, X1) aren't there yet. The S2 is an interesting camera for all Leica users. The S2 and the M9 are two utterly different cameras, especially because one is a SLR and the other is a RF camera. Even comparing cameras of these two categories with same-size sensors, they would be utterly different. You use them differently. You think differently. You see differently (read Sean Reid's new piece on 'Seeing the Subject' at http://www.reidreviews.com). Different kinds of people use them for different purposes in different situations. You are not even comparing apples to oranges, but apples to coconuts. Oh yes, the M9 is improveable. Weather sealing (or rather, humidity proofing) would be good to have. Electronics will improve. So what? (a) The M9 is the ultimate camera for a lot of people. ( No camera will remain ultimate forever -- not even the S2. Nothing should be judged by what it is not, but by what it is. The old man from the Age of Perforated Strips of Celluloid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 13, 2010 Posted March 13, 2010 Hi lars_bergquist, Take a look here My Leica S2 Review Is Up!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lumpidu Posted March 14, 2010 Share #22 Posted March 14, 2010 Hmm, if I am looking at straight diagonal lines in this picture (e.g. the top of the bridge) I can only say that these are the most extreme aliasing artifacts I have ever seen. Can you make sure that these aren't jpeg artifacts and give us a comparison between a 100% crop of a tiff and a jpeg of the same picture area ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arwendur Posted March 29, 2010 Share #23 Posted March 29, 2010 Just some hands on experience for 5 days or so... The Leica S2 Camera Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Great review. Your cat needs some help though, there's a flea right by its eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted March 30, 2010 Share #24 Posted March 30, 2010 Excellent review... Attended the Leica S2 Roadshow here in New York City last week and found it most informative.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 30, 2010 Share #25 Posted March 30, 2010 ...The S2 is an interesting camera for all Leica users... With deep pockets or a very understanding SWMBO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 30, 2010 Share #26 Posted March 30, 2010 Some artefacts and color fringing here. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/114107-my-leica-s2-review-is-up/?do=findComment&comment=1278090'>More sharing options...
Constable Posted March 31, 2010 Share #27 Posted March 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Looks as if CA is going to be an issue. No CA correction applied to DNG. It is only noticeable if you pixel-peep. S2 + 70mm Ed Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/114107-my-leica-s2-review-is-up/?do=findComment&comment=1279407'>More sharing options...
markowich Posted April 1, 2010 Share #28 Posted April 1, 2010 Looks as if CA is going to be an issue. No CA correction applied to DNG. It is only noticeable if you pixel-peep. S2 + 70mm Ed ed, the bookeh is very weird. reminds me of the nikon 105mm AF makro f2.8... peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constable Posted April 2, 2010 Share #29 Posted April 2, 2010 ed,the bookeh is very weird. reminds me of the nikon 105mm AF makro f2.8... peter Hi Peter, Yes you are right .. I was actually thinking more of the Zeiss 100 Makro. The lens was wide open at ISO 160 so I guess it is what you expect. I actually quite like it ... it pulls the subject from the background nicely. And the CA disappears with one tweak in C1 or CS4 Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted April 2, 2010 Share #30 Posted April 2, 2010 Load some DNGs in Lightroom3 - something went terribly wrong (some full-size images look like they're coming from a p&s) in conversion/compression for the web in this otherwise nice review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constable Posted April 2, 2010 Share #31 Posted April 2, 2010 Load some DNGs in Lightroom3 - something went terribly wrong (some full-size images look like they're coming from a p&s) in conversion/compression for the web in this otherwise nice review. Hello Georg, Was that to me? If so the CA in Lightroom 3 is MUCH worse after the initial loading than in Capture One. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 2, 2010 Share #32 Posted April 2, 2010 Hello Georg, Was that to me? If so the CA in Lightroom 3 is MUCH worse after the initial loading than in Capture One. Ed There is no free lunch with c/a removal. It sometimes will also remove red that is not c/a from fine detail or small areas of an image. This may be a problem for some images and maybe won't ever be noticed in others. I recently bought the new Canon 24 TSE II and carefully tested it against my old version 1 24 TSE. The version II has no c/a that I could detect and when I tried removing all the c/a via DXO from the version 1 lens, some c/a remained and areas such as red car taillights had lost their red color. I'll have to test what C1 does on the same image. For what it's worth the new Canon 17 and 24 TSE lenses are a revelation to me of what is possible in lens design. The S2 lenses better be this good or I won't see much point to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constable Posted April 2, 2010 Share #33 Posted April 2, 2010 Alan, The effect in the fountain photograph is actually unnoticeable on printing. It is really only an issue with images that are (i) underexposed and (ii) with high-contrast edges. For example, trees against early morning sky. On my D3X the Nikon 12-24 does it under the same conditions but the Zeiss 21 doesn't! But otherwise the Leica S lenses are tack-sharp for me. I know Peter M had some issues with them though. Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted April 2, 2010 Share #34 Posted April 2, 2010 I've meant all the artifacts within the JPGs shown in the review. More than just debayering-issue, it seems like some kind of extra-sharpening was applied to the JPG-output and the compression itself is much to high!? I only handled early prototypes of the S2 with the 70mm and noticed barely any loss in IQ in the corners, even at f2.5 - just like the MTF intends. The 70mm has 2 more elements, floating elements and aspherics in comparison to regular MF-standard-lenses and the MTFs are way superior as well - maybe tolerances are still not up to the necessary level and a certain serial variaton exists, although that was never a major issue for Leica in the past decades and would be a shame for such a prestigous product!? And never forget that sensors are far from being perfect and 2/3 color information are interpolated (and therefore in the hands debayering-algorithms of the RAW-converter) anyway. Just like the purple fringing shown in certain high-contrast-situations which reduces to a normal level just by using C1 (without any lens profile we know of for digital correction!). L3 also works excellent with all the S2-DNGs I've tried, while Aperture seems very artifact-prone in my experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted April 2, 2010 Share #35 Posted April 2, 2010 Alan, The effect in the fountain photograph is actually unnoticeable on printing. It is really only an issue with images that are (i) underexposed and (ii) with high-contrast edges. For example, trees against early morning sky. On my D3X the Nikon 12-24 does it under the same conditions but the Zeiss 21 doesn't! But otherwise the Leica S lenses are tack-sharp for me. I know Peter M had some issues with them though. Ed ed, other than sharpness/acuity, i do not like the bookeh of the S 70mm lens. don't know how you see it, but the idea that leica set out to reinvent the MF lens quality definition (or was it just what david farkas thought it would/should be?) has totally been obliterated. mamiya/phase/hassy lenses do just as well or better. what is the point after all? and i do like the S2 body a lot....just don't like the sensor and i do not get a kick out of the lenses. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constable Posted April 3, 2010 Share #36 Posted April 3, 2010 Peter I agree with you. The thing for me about the S2 is a form factor like an SLR and something that I can use in the field. The lenses are a bonus .. but I agree, not significantly better than any other MF option. I'm just desperate to try the macro I will try to put some side by side shots up later of D3X-zeiss 100 makro with the S2-70 ; you are correct about the bokeh being similar. I actually like it, but it is purely a personal thing. I'm so used to macro where the depth of field is so shallow hat you never think about the background! The fun is going to come with stacking S2 macro images ... gigabytes of data! Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted April 3, 2010 Share #37 Posted April 3, 2010 Enlighten us with a sample showing superior IQ from any Fuji or Mamiya-lens in direct comparison! The net is full from less-than-optimal comparisons. They make f16 (diffraction), 1/90s handheld studio-comparisons without getting the focus on the area which they claim to compare... Or sharpness-tests with different distances without refocusing! Samples with heavy JPG-compression or oversharpening-artifacts that more look like internal jpg-processing... Sometimes it's in favor of the S2, sometimes of the compared system (Hassy/Phamiya) but very often it simply doesn't do the systems justice. http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/shareID6403983/fileID424693444/424693444.jpg http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/shareID6403983/fileID424692707/424692707.jpg These are two open-aperture-samples Mr. Farkas posted from the 70mm, one is a crop from the center, the other one is a corner-crop - that's pretty much what I saw from the prototypes myself. To be honest, I haven't noticed any strange bokeh as well, if you're happy with the bokeh from your newer M-lenses, you will like the bokeh from the S-lenses, too. If you expect any f1-Nocti-magic, you might be disappointed. I attached a simple 160ASA vs. 1250ASA-comparison I've made with LR3 from DNGs (fotopolis.pl), just standard without any "magic" from an experienced LR-user, took me 15 seconds and I converted it to JPG in paint (!) - I don't know, but the noise/detail looks better at 1250ASA than in most samples I've seen which make the noise look like 25600ASA from a Nikon. Why? Propably they weren't even able to nail exposure between 160ASA and 1250ASA? Why is it so difficult? Was it always that way? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Mr. Huff's reviews very much. But many 100% samples are less than ideal to show the technical performance of the tested equipment - for whatever reason. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/114107-my-leica-s2-review-is-up/?do=findComment&comment=1282318'>More sharing options...
markowich Posted April 3, 2010 Share #38 Posted April 3, 2010 Enlighten us with a sample showing superior IQ from any Fuji or Mamiya-lens in direct comparison! The net is full from less-than-optimal comparisons. They make f16 (diffraction), 1/90s handheld studio-comparisons without getting the focus on the area which they claim to compare... Or sharpness-tests with different distances without refocusing! Samples with heavy JPG-compression or oversharpening-artifacts that more look like internal jpg-processing... Sometimes it's in favor of the S2, sometimes of the compared system (Hassy/Phamiya) but very often it simply doesn't do the systems justice. http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/shareID6403983/fileID424693444/424693444.jpg http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/shareID6403983/fileID424692707/424692707.jpg These are two open-aperture-samples Mr. Farkas posted from the 70mm, one is a crop from the center, the other one is a corner-crop - that's pretty much what I saw from the prototypes myself. To be honest, I haven't noticed any strange bokeh as well, if you're happy with the bokeh from your newer M-lenses, you will like the bokeh from the S-lenses, too. If you expect any f1-Nocti-magic, you might be disappointed. I attached a simple 160ASA vs. 1250ASA-comparison I've made with LR3 from DNGs (fotopolis.pl), just standard without any "magic" from an experienced LR-user, took me 15 seconds and I converted it to JPG in paint (!) - I don't know, but the noise/detail looks better at 1250ASA than in most samples I've seen which make the noise look like 25600ASA from a Nikon. Why? Propably they weren't even able to nail exposure between 160ASA and 1250ASA? Why is it so difficult? Was it always that way? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Mr. Huff's reviews very much. But many 100% samples are less than ideal to show the technical performance of the tested equipment - for whatever reason. georg, guy mancuso posted lots of brickwall shots (phmamiya) recently over at getdpi. his P40/mamiya combo beats the S2-70mm in my view. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted April 5, 2010 Share #39 Posted April 5, 2010 No, two different people compared two different systems on different locations (which look similar - brickwalls) wth different workflows and different focus distance (the S2-shot must have less than ~2cm DoF!) - although Mr. Mancusos 80mm is better open aperture than any Mamiya-lens I've tried. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 5, 2010 Share #40 Posted April 5, 2010 No, two different people compared two different systems on different locations (which look similar - brickwalls) wth different workflows and different focus distance (the S2-shot must have less than ~2cm DoF!) - although Mr. Mancusos 80mm is better open aperture than any Mamiya-lens I've tried. True different everything but same applies when I did my test together the 70mm was no better than my 80D. Actually thought the 80D was better in some cases. The S 180mm is by far there better lens between the 70 and 180. What really bugs me is the distortion with the claim that these lenses have built in lens corrections . Sorry but I see barrel and vignetting as well. To me it looks like any other lens pretty much without lens corrections. I find that a little strange with all the marketing about lens corrections built in. I have seen CA, Barrel, Vignetting, Moire which was claimed there was none. Specs and MTF charts are nice BUT real world images tells me far more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.